Bose, revisited

The 'legendary' AM 'dual cubes' in all their glory:

A bose 10" woofer from the '501' speaker:

Are we impressed yet?

How about this catch phrase:

More like Stereo Nowhere. "Stereo, where are you?"

Sorry I was just searching bookshelf speakers on ebay, and got sick of seeing bose. What I will never figure out, is how some people actually like (or at least believe they like) the sound of bose systems. The mystery will never be solved. On that note check out this 'gem' I also stumbled across on ebay:

Ah but check out the current iterations. I've never heard of this guy either, but a quick google search puts him in some pretty prominent company. If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are). Notice how he time aligned the drivers, this for a '70's design!

Man, those cube drivers look like the "tweeters" that were on those 301s that I used to use as my surrounds. The only things missing are the chintzy plastic brackets that point the tweeters in different directions.

Funny that they would trademark "Stereo Everywhere" because listening to those speakers, it sounds more like "Mono Everywhere".

Sequerra

Originally Posted by vr6ofpain

Good old paper cone tweeters. Bring on the wizzer cones!

Funny that was exactly what I was thinking!!

Dick Sequerra was the designer of the Day-Sequerra tuner; one of the best tuners ever made. The speaker pictured were the Sequerra Model 7. This speaker was designed to work with a marvelous ribbon tweeter (the T-1) and a subwoofer. The system was a spectaular imaging system and the high frequency extension was beautiful. Back in the early 80's many a listener aspired to an all Sequerra system.

Thanks for the link!

Originally Posted by topspeed

Ah but check out the current iterations. I've never heard of this guy either, but a quick google search puts him in some pretty prominent company. If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are). Notice how he time aligned the drivers, this for a '70's design!

You bunch of hypocrites

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

Chill out man

Originally Posted by mustang

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

This thread is a bit of a troll, don't take the bait.

AR Members;

If anyone decides to start flaming I'll close this thread in a heartbeat.

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

In some respects you are quite correct at least about rubber surrounds and paper woofers. There is nothing at all wrong with paper or foam surrounds for sound quality and possess many advantages. Audio Note uses rubber as a compromise on their K due to the outsourcing. The owner would have to buy 1,000 drivers in order to get them with foam and for the size of the company they have to settle with rubber which is ok in that it costs less. Indeed, Lynn Olsen wrote about the pro's and cons of almost every driver material out there and he preferred paper over plastic composites such as polyprolyene and others such as Kevlar. Paper requires more work to get right however.

Paper took a beating probably because many comapnies dodn;t do it right so rather than blame the designer they blamed the materials...paper I don;t believe has ever worked as a 3 inch tweeter...which is why some Bose set-ups don't extend beyond 13khz (acoustimass??) This was an atrocious system.

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

Considering your hot temper, it sounds like you own bose.

No we actually base our negative opinion on the 'fact' that the sound of Bose speakers is sub par (opinion of listening and actual measured response). They sound bright and quite terrible. Paper cone woofers seem to work, but I havent [personally] heard any good sounding speakers with paper cone tweeters. I was not supporting that guy's speaker designs. I just thought it was strange and wanted to know if anyone else had heard of Dick Sequerra.

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

Not a fan of Bose myself, the man is a marketing genius and a crappy designer of speakers, but I have heard the Sequerra Met 7 and they are not Bose. They sound good, image extremely well and in the system they were designed to be represented a near SOTA speaker system. The paper cone was by design. With the T-1 ribbon tweeter the natural rolloff of the paper cone meshed perfectly, giving an almost invisible x-over. It's not the materials, its the design.

All you guys can talk about is the cheap paper cones used in BOSE speakers. You then go on to read about speakers you've never heard (or heard of) and claim that they must be great. Did anyone notice that they use PAPER CONE TWEETERS. Oh, but they do have rubber surrounds on the woofers. They must be good.
"If the same basic design has been around for 30 odd years, chances are they are actually pretty good (ugly as they are)." Could the same thing be said for the BOSE 901s?
You've all lost your credibility. Your arguments against BOSE are void of facts.

FACT: The 901 is a legendary speaker...but it still measures (and sounds) like sh!t.
FACT: Bose doesn't provide FR measurements with any of their speakers.
FACT: When FR measurments have been done by third parties, they invariably are horrible w/ massive peaks and valleys.

Whoa!

Originally Posted by topspeed

FACT: The 901 is a legendary speaker...but it still measures (and sounds) like sh!t.
FACT: Bose doesn't provide FR measurements with any of their speakers.
FACT: When FR measurments have been done by third parties, they invariably are horrible w/ massive peaks and valleys.

We're the ones without credibility, huh?

Bose; It's what's for dinner.

I'l take some cream in my coffee thanks, it needs to LIGHTEN UP a bit!

As a midrange support only, properly made paper drivers can be made to work just as other weird stuff like kevlar, rubber, alu, plastic, mylar, etc. If I remember my specs on this issue correctly, properly layered paper sheets that are epoxied together are actually a pretty good material with decent sonic distortion characteristics without the spikes of lets say kevlar.

Paper also allows you to make a cheap, and poorly sounding driver, and it's a lousy surround material (like any other fiber) because it's sonic characteristics will change as the fibers wear.

I needn't mention most Bose products to my ears sound like; and have the same spectral distrubtion as: stuffing an angry cat in a dryer and mic-ing the dryer vent.

i have the answer take the bose woofer or tweeter and another manufacturers woofer or tweeter and put them in water to see which one floats the longest, it will prob be the bose due to fact they dont weight much since their magnets are small LMAO. we can let the fish decide which is better ROTFLMAO hows that for a scientific evaluation